The Real Reason Men Cause More Sex Scandals Than Women

As sex scandals involving powerful men seem to be getting increasingly commonplace (Edwards, Lee, Schwarzenegger, Strauss-Kahn, Weiner, etc.), many have been asking: Why are men so much more likely than women to cause these scandals? Why, in other words, are men so much more willing than women to risk losing their careers and families in order to pursue new mating opportunities?

Darwin's theories of natural and sexual selection provide a deeply compelling framework for understanding the sex difference in this compulsion to pursue new mates. And while much of the general public may be willing to accept, on some level, that this sex difference has evolutionary biological roots, there is still a lot of fear and misunderstanding out there about what the implications of this fact may be.

This fear and misunderstanding is evident in recent articles about why men cause more scandals than women. In a New York Times piece Sheryl Stolberg says, "It would be easy to... dismiss" the sex difference "as a testosterone-induced, hard-wired connection between sex and power." Stolberg goes on to explain her view that the difference is the product not of biology, but of the fact that women in power are more serious about their jobs (a view for which there doesn't seem to be much evidence). And in a post for Slate, Amanda Marcotte commends Stolberg for "manag[ing] to avoid the trap of trying to establish some dramatic differences between male and female sexuality." She goes on to offer her own preferred explanations: men cause more scandals because there are more men in power (a view debunked in this article), and because women would be more harshly punished for such behavior (which doesn't explain why the severe punishments faced by males in these scandals—e.g., loss of career—haven't done much to deter them).

The language that Stolberg and Marcotte use implies fear of the idea that the sex difference is biological. Stolberg says that to accept this fact would be to "dismiss" the behavior. It seems odd to regard the evolutionary view as a dismissal rather than an explanation for the behavior, but I suppose she fears that if it's biological then we must just accept it as "natural" because there's nothing we can do to change it. And Marcotte regards the evolutionary view not as an explanation but as a "trap," suggesting that accepting it would be freedom-restricting in some way.

These fears illustrate beautifully the kind of flawed assumptions about evolutionary psychology that I discussed in my last post, "Mental evolution and the freedom to change." Instead of regarding evolved mental adaptations as the mechanisms which make behavior possible, these authors see biology as something which oppresses and constrains behavior. But if you're serious about understanding the causes of behavior, in a way that would give you some power to change that behavior (in yourself or others), then their approach is exactly the wrong one to take. Efforts to pretend that these sex differences aren't rooted in biology, and to offer relatively superficial alternative explanations that strenuously avoid the truth because they see it as a trap, are ultimately a road to nowhere.

Before I go further, let me review the evolutionary logic for why men are on average more interested than women in acquiring new sex partners. Evolutionary success is mainly about success in reproductive competition, and how you achieve this success depends on how much you are obligated to invest in the production of offspring. This "parental investment" can take many forms, including the investment of one's own bodily reproductive capacity. In general, female mammals must make a large minimum investment in order to reproduce (e.g. in ancestral humans, nine months of gestation and years of lactation), whereas male mammals can reproduce with a much smaller minimum investment (i.e. a few minutes of time and an easily replenished amount of sperm). This does not mean that males don't often benefit their offspring in essential ways by investing beyond this bare minimum. However, it does mean that because the obligatory costs of reproduction are (in most species) much lower for males than for females, there are significant differences in the mating strategies that males and females evolve.

The typical pattern--and the one that applies to humans--is that females evolve to be relatively choosy about who they mate with, and relatively low in "sociosexuality" (i.e., relatively uninterested in promiscuous, uncommitted sex). Males, on the other hand, have more to gain and less to lose from having large numbers of sexual partners, and they evolve to be less choosy and higher in sociosexuality. A simple way to understand this logic is to imagine what an ancestral man and woman could have gained reproductively from having 100 sex partners, as opposed to just one partner, in one year. The woman could produce exactly one child, whether she had one or 100 partners, and so would gain little from those 99 extra partners. For the man, on the other hand, 99 extra partners could in theory mean 99 extra kids.

This sex difference in the desire for new mates doesn't mean that men aren't interested in long-term, committed sexual relationships; on the contrary, most men strive for such relationships and value them deeply. But it does mean that even when he is involved in such a relationship, the average man will regard opportunities to mate with new partners as being more compelling than would the average woman. And the strength of this temptation will generally be proportional to his social status, because the higher his status, the more women will be attracted to him (again, for basic evolutionary reasons), and the more opportunities he will have.

So the high status man will often face a dilemma. While some evolved modules in his brain—let's call them his "long-term interest" modules—are coaching him to act in ways that will benefit his family, career and reputation, other evolved modules—his "mating" modules—are urging him to pursue new sexual opportunities. And these mating modules, besides being insistently persuasive in their own right, may even actively sabotage the influence of the long-term interest modules, by causing the man to underestimate and discount the risks involved (to family, career and reputation) in the pursuit of sexual thrills. Thus the man may be compelled to pursue these thrills in ways that, to other people, seem surprisingly reckless and stupid. ("Why on earth would he think he'd be able to get away with that?")

It's hard to see how anyone could truly accept the theory of evolution without also accepting that when the sexes differ in obligatory parental investment, they're going to evolve divergent mating strategies. Nevertheless, it's a non sequitur to say that because this fact applies to humans, we must see "scandalous" male behavior as "natural," condonable or inevitable. Cross-culturally (and again, for elementary evolutionary reasons), men are much more likely than women to commit murder, but thankfully, people in most modern societies don't think that it's "natural," condonable or inevitable for men to murder.

If you're a man who wants to avoid wrecking your life for the sake of pursuing new mating opportunities, your best hope is to recognize that when these opportunities present themselves, your brain's mating modules will know precisely what they want you to do, and you may feel like they're making a heroic effort to get you to do it. They may even cause you to badly underestimate the damage that your actions could cause to your family and career, and to overestimate your chances of getting away with it or of being forgiven. To avoid doing something you may regret, recognize your mating modules for what they are, and be aware of what they're trying to persuade you to do. This knowledge will increase your power to ignore them, and to listen more to the parts of your brain that evolved to serve you in the long term.

(A version of this article appeared in the author's "Natural Law" column in the banking magazine Global Custodian, Summer plus 2011 issue).

What truly amazes me is that every idiot will actually jump onthis as every man's opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is jusy one man's opinion. Women celeb are different to be sure.When a man grabs a woman, that is illegal. When women jump onto men, it is ok. It can be tough to turn down a woman like that. I know I am not the only one it happens to-Like in Moshe or beautyshop. My wife laughs a lot but when women offer to have her join in, then she gets fired up. One BIG mistake guys make is that they believe women when they say the will not reveal the affair. A woman could not afford bankruptcy so she offered sex to the attorney-he accepted. Then she blackmailed him, gave it to the press and he was disbarred. Are women less trustworthy? The facts speak for themselves. Rather than just turn them down-
shoot them so they can't do the same thing to another person-leeches. It is ok for women to do this because they will be portrayed as the victim even though they were the agressor-like cougars. Gain insight from the sports world. Women never shut up Groupies.

"Rather than just turn them down - SHOOT THEM so they can't do the same thing to another person-leeches."

WTF is wrong with you, man? Why are you promoting murder and violence towards women? You sound like a woman hating psycho with deep rooted psychological problems. Go see a shrink before you end up physically hurting an innocent woman because you didn't like the way she spoke to you or the way she looked at you.

It's weirdos like you that make it seem like most men are bad or immoral or violent.

Since the limelight is turned on to a man, anything done is being highlighted. Be it a man in a high position or just an ordinary manager in a private company. If he makes advances to a lady he is either thrown out, ridiculed and the lady is often shown as a victim. But what ever a woman does it does not seem to come up for hearing before any investigative committee.

Is that called freedom of speech? It is utterly useless in the land of the free or any part of the world.

Choice . Yes we as humans may be all so different and have differnt needs and wants yet when it comes to relationships is it not choice that one takes . Choice that one offers a trust , and a binding accountability to that trust .
Relationships and trusts that have been bended and excused for reasoning of hormones or the differences in the sexes Yet is it really . Does it not fall more to what we a individuals allow ourselves to do . To reason it down of lack of closeness or comfort with in a relationship or to just say that this is that way things are and have been and will alawys be . Excuse me for saying " Hog wash " This is again what we as humans allow ourselves to do . The sexes are different for reasons yet not to be used as an excuse . Not to be said that one or the other needs more then the other . Feelings or the lack there of in these acts may be rampent yet are ones that will live on . If to understand how the effects of ones actions can be on another . Accountability in life may be easy to slide from or even denied in actions yet some how we still are able to give some understanding to one of the sexes leaving the other to explain or be decerned . Why did he do it any way ? He must have had a good reason or it was the good old stand in the hormome that they seem or feel that they are so gifted with . Well for woman this may be a hormone that has " Tested their last nerve " not to say that woman be found outside thier relationships . Comparitivly there is still an imbalance of what happens .The man may loose his job or as seen he seems to resign . Woman are left as said to be decerned by the pubic of all the whys he may of , or how could she not have known . The evolutionm in this behavior is not because of how one was born it is because of how one chooses to live . Let us hope this evolution in this entire lack of caring for all those that may be effected in ones acts will move forward rather then give reasoning for or justified . Hog wash is Hog wash no matter how you look at it . It is time that both men and women take relationships for what they were meant to be rather then to take them for granted .

Good article indeed if not just to create a forum or a pause in life for others to think of actions that we each take do effect others . Whether we want them to or not . We do not live in this world alone . Even if some may believe they do .

These are all American sex scandals. Part of what would constitute a sex scandal is cultural. Part of the obsession with sex scandals is cultural. Americans are obsessed with sex.

If a woman behaved the same way, she'd be judged harsher than a man. That being said the difference between men and women cannot be ignored. Most women have no urge to act like that even if they had 'permission'. I'd say thats the basis for alot of porno. Guys wishing women wanted to act like that.

Kinda like how its almost accepted for women to sexually harrass men because its assumed that they'd enjoy it. I know guys that joke that they wish someone would sexually harrass them. Most women I know have had unwelcome oglers.

Since we are talking about evolutionary biology, it should be mentioned that women, in good stable relationships, often will have children by other men ( not their husbands or partners) in order to pass on the other man's genes to her children. Also, it should be mentioned that according to sexual researchers from Texas University, women have sex for at least 271 different reasons, most of which seem to have little to do with getting pregnant or getting married. The problem, i think, stems from our adherence to puritanical notions about who we are sexually as men and women. We continue to act as if this is some morality play , in which either men or women are deemed better or more morally upright than the other. It is no accident that we don't talk about this massive infidelity and marriage fraud committed by women and only focus on male infidelity. Also, the idea that women who cheat and deceive suffer more than men doesn't seem to affected the reputations of or earning power or status of Madonna, Mae West, or l'il Kim or any number of famous groupies,to just name a few. Women are having affairs and lot's of uncommitted sex. In my personal life, over the years i have had sexual offers from married women, women who were related to my girlfriend at the time and women who were otherwise in relationships.I believe this is called mate poaching. A girlfriend once told me during the seventies during yet another sexual revolution, she had lot's of sex with multiple partners, sometimes at the same time. I asked her why she did and she said ," because everybody else was doing it. " Not once did she admit that she did what she did because she was lustful and desirous. It seems like the only reason a woman doesn't want her sex life known is because it lessens her chance of getting a long-term relationship rather than because of some archaic social pressures she doesn't even have to face anymore. And quite frankly i've learned my lesson and avoid serious relationships with women who have a history of promiscuity; it's not worth it.

Its not really just the man, its also the woman's. It seems that men and women sexuality are interlocked so that men are very much tempted to be promiscuous. Women are sexually attracted to handsome successful or powerful men, while men are easily aroused by sexually receptive women. A rather potent combination.

I wonder how this problem be prevented. Would teaching people about sexuality help?

I couldn't agree more with your assertion that male and female sexuality is linked and because it is so we should discuss infidelity from this perspective; which as a society we don't. We speak of these issues has if men are predatory and women are helpless victims. From personal experience I have had women who knew me and my partner make unprovoked, very coded, sexual advances at me. No, I am not saying that i am uber desirable; I'm just stating facts. I don't believe this problem can prevented, but it can be understood and the negative impact can be perhaps lessened. Though that won't happen unless we are honest and forthcoming about what and who we are as men and women rather than create this imaginary world of human sexuality that everyone attempts to live up to. The same can be said for how we view and process abuse, sexual and otherwise, in culture. Sapphire, the woman who wrote the powerful book Push from which the movie Precious was based, said in an interview (I'm paraphrasing) that people are in denial about abuse by women {I think this is especially true in the black and white communities}and find abuse much easier to blame on men. There are groups like Pandora's Box that are trying to change this erroneous perception, but cultural change is hard.

The article uses the current General P scandal to make several globally relevant conclusions. This may or not be valid, but let's remember that the issue with the general is related to the potential security breach, the thousands of pages of "stuff" floating around, and the simple carelessness of it all.
Folks do cheat from time to time and maybe men do it more often than women. Usually, though, it takes two to perform the deed, as several readers have pointed out.

This is not a complex or confounding issue: People are horny (admittedly to varying degrees). When they see an opportunity to copulate with someone they find attractive and the circumstances are right, they WILL screw around. This impulse, which stems from the oldest part of the brain, will in many cases easily override the logic provided by the more recent additions it. It is THAT simple. As for the difference between the sexes, men generally have two things that will improve their odds of being selected by a fertile female: Obvious genetic qualities (attractiveness) or status, both of which are likely to ensure the survival of offspring.

Any attempt to make this issue more complicated are (generally speaking) postmodern-beating around the bush-psychobabble bullshit (pardon my French)

Social Darwinism is so engrained in all the scientific disciplines that all social or scientific explanations must come from an evolution . You see this in all the "cave men" explanations to human behavior even if the solid scientfic research isn't there. After a while if you hear these cave man findings in popular media enough, people begin to believe it. It is a mistake, and dangerous to assume that people are dominated by their biology. It allows people to explain bad behavior. We all have free will and make decsions because its what we want to do. I am the same way. If I make a bad choice it is because its what I wanted to do, not because I am a male who is only subject to his biology.

You haven't proven that men stray more than women except to use some sort of outdated culturally accepted bias. Missattributed paternity rates might put paid to that idea, and thats just affairs that ended in pregnancy

Here's a little bit of sexism from evolutionary psychology: When discussing women and children, they will talk about the incredible span of time it takes to bring a human to sexual maturity, and consider how that affects gender, but they ignore it when discussing men. A male is not successful simply by procreating - and neither is a female. Each must also ensure survival of the offspring to it's own reproductive years. With humans, this requires enormous resource and time commitment. That should also be factored in when considering what is natural behavior. Otherwise, you're wearing blinders.

Except since men can never be sure if the progeny is theirs and women can, it gives them further incentive to "spread their seed" so to speak with minimal time commitment, whereas the females have no such reason to doubt the parentage of the progeny.